In a July 26, 2022 letter to the Historic Aiken Foundation (HAF), Aiken Municipal Development Chair (AMDC) Keith Wood attributed a slowdown in the “tireless” work to “find a suitable permanent solution that would elmininate any and all” fire risks associated with the Hotel Aiken and surrounding properties to three week old litigation involving the HAF and eight other plaintiffs. (1)
The AMDC bought the Hotel Aiken and six other properties for $9.5 million in November, 2021, and intends to demolish its investments and remake the area into a complex of new apartments, parking garage, hotel, retail, and conference center. Apparently, litigation filed eight months after the purchase is a cause for an absence of fire inspections and an alarm system.
Wood’s letter was in response to a July 22, 2022 letter from the HAF requesting specific maintenance and safety measures by the AMDC due to a concern “that adverse conditions at the hotel lead to further deterioration of its condition.”
Sapling-sized tree in the second story window above Beyond Bijou. This sapling was in the window in November 2021 when the AMDC bought the property, and is still there today.
The letter named six specific actions ranging from monthly inspections to fire monitoring and sealing of hatches and other access points; and asked the AMDC to “remove debris around the exterior of the building both for safety and to improve the general character of the area.”
In his response, Mr. Wood committed to no changes from the status quo and assured the HAF that “all reasonable measures are in place to ensure” the integrity and security of the Hotel Aiken. He then proceeded to falsely infer ownership of the existing fire detection system, failed to acknowledge an unauthorized intrusion into hotel last week, and implied a part-time caretaker constitutes a full-time fire watch. The AMDC’s confident demeanor is further undermined by the fact that no fire inspections have occurred since the commission purchased the building.
Wood did not comment on the HAF’s request for monthly fire inspection system. According to Aiken Public Safety records, the last inspection by the City of Aiken was on February 17, 2021; and a freedom of information act (FOIA) request for all fire inspections since March 2, 2021 yielded no documents. March 2, 2021; Aiken Public Safety fire marshalls conducted three thorough inspections between early 2019 and February of 2021.
Click image to view full size
The existing fire detection system involves more than 100 heat detectors. It was installed by ADS Security for the previous owner, Historic Hospitality, LLC (Agent: Neel Shah) to meet criteria for city approval of an interior demolition permit issued in 2018. While describing the system as a “robust set of smoke, heat, and fire sensors placed throughout the structure,” Wood failed to acknowledge the system was in place when the AMDC bought the property and signed a contract with ADS to continue the system. The commission is only paying $65 a month for the basic service and has not incurred any installation charges.
The hotel “fire watch” involves a single “APS Cadet” who receives free rent from the AMDC in return for the following work services:
General public safety and fire watch works;
to monitor the area of the adjacent city properties on a regular basis and report any suspicious activity to public safety for further investigation;
other duties as assigned. (3)
The fire watch/caretaker is not assigned to assist with cleanup behind that hotel that contributes to a blighted appearance the AMDC is chartered to address. City of Aiken officials will not respond to specific questions pertaining to the percentage of time the property caretaker is on site, or to what other duties have been assigned.
The extent to which an APS fire cadet, who is also being trained elsewhere on critical emergency response procedures, is monitoring the area “on a regular basis” is unknown, as city officials have not responded to such questions. It is now known that it is clearly not regular enough to prevent unauthorized intruders from entering the hotel.
While Mr. Wood did not cite any recent intrusions, AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant has acknowledged an intrusion last week, just a few days after HAF President Linda Johnson reported “the gate in the rear chain link fence was wide open.” The intrusion was noted only after the fact during a “routine security check by staff.”
Recent photos of the open gate, as reported by HAF President Linda Johnson. The interior chain link that can be seen is just a fence section, not a complete fence, so someone can just walk around that part when the gate is open. (Photos courtesy of Linda Johnson)
As a result, “an additional intrusion security is being added to the contract with design of the sensor layout taking place this week and installation in the near future.” However, in Mr. Wood’s version of events, any time the rear gate was open “an authorized key holder is present on the property.”
So Wood provided no reason for the AMDC to engage ADS Security to “add motion and intrusion alarms to the system;” while O’Briant admitted that a break-in was the reason.
But the saddest part of this story is that the AMDC loves to tout Aiken’s Economic Master Plan when it is convenient to do so. The plan (2) was prepared by the AECOM Corporation (Now part of Amentum, Mr. Wood’s employer) and adopted by City Council in March, 2021, about the same time that Project Pascalis began mostly in secrecy. In the plan that commissioners love to cite and discuss is this passage:
“Aiken also has the unique challenge of preserving its notable historic architecture, while making room for new growth, so the City will need to partner with the Historic Aiken Foundation and other stakeholders to ensure that the downtown’s charming historic character is preserved, while also encouraging new growth and development and higher densities where appropriate.”
Yet, the Historic Aiken Foundation has never been invited to an AMDC meeting, and this week the AMDC chair stiff-armed the concerns of the foundation and chose antagonism over cooperation.
Project Pascalis is the name for a proposed $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment project targeted for downtown Aiken. The project is being directed by the Aiken Municipal Development Agency (AMDC), which in December 2021 officially announced RPM Development Partners, LLC (agent: Ray Massey) as the project developer. RPM represents the three primary investors and developers: Raines Company, Lat Purser and Associates, and Ray Massey.
Information obtained yesterday regarding an extravagant taxpayer funded dinner featuring shots of premium whiskey reveals that the Mayor of Aiken, the City Manager, the city’s Economic Development Director, and three Aiken Municipal Development Commissioners participated in a “social business gathering” with three members of RPM Development Partners. A separate check was provided to the latter group. Most of the participants also attended a City of Aiken Design Review Board (DRB) workshop just prior to the gathering.
On July 13, 2022 I emailed (1) Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh with concerns and questions regarding two issues on the “transparency page” of Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) website:
The existence of copies of AMDC checks within invoice and billing files with routing number and account number not redacted; and
A January 10th check from the AMDC to the City of Aiken for a $620 bar and dinner bill dated January 4, 2022 from Prime Steakhouse in downtown Aiken. On that bill were seven orders of premium whiskey worth $130, four orders of steaks, one order of short ribs, one order of veal piccatta, and an appetizer of Calamari.
Within a few days, all files containing copies of compromised AMDC checks were removed from their “transparency page,” and have yet to be returned.
In regard to the Prime Steakhouse bill, one question posed was:
Can you identify the people in the party who dined on fine steaks along with premium whiskey that afternoon?
After two weeks without any further response, on July 25th I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the expense report, the meeting notes, and a listing of all attendants including those on a referenced second check.(2)
On July 27th Aiken Economic Development Director and FOIA officer Tim O’Briant responded with another copy of the dinner and bar tab and a copy of the AMDC check, with banking information redacted.
Copy of AMDC check and City of Aiken purchasing card statement
In an emailed response, Mr O’Briant explained that the City’s purchasing card was used “because the restaurant does not accept checks as the AMDC intended to pay;” and the city was later reimbursed by its commission. O’Briant also explained the following regarding attendees and meeting notes:
Those from the City of AIken present were Stuart Bedenbaugh, Rick Osbon and Tim O’Briant. From the AMDC, attendees were Keith Wood, Chris Verenes and David Jameson.
There was no record of discussion and no agreements were made during this business social gathering following a day of stakeholder meetings held by RPM, LLC and Raines, and followed by the AIken DRB meeting earlier in the evening
Neither the City nor the AMDC maintains a record of those attending from RPM or Raines, but by memory it included David Tart, Ray Massey and Brandon Graham. Ticket number two was for their meals and the City of Aiken nor the AMDC maintain a record of the charges paid by RPM/Raines.
David Tart is a managing partner of Raines, Brandon Graham is a project manager for Raines, and Ray Massey is a lead investor and agent for both Project Pascalis developers RPM Development Partners and Aiken Alley Holdings.
Prior to the Prime Steakhouse dinner and drinks, Stuart Bedenbaugh, Tim O’Briant, David Jameson, Chris Verenes, Ray Massey, and Brandon Graham all reportedly attended the City of Aiken’s Design Review Board Workshop (DRB), but not its monthly public meeting.(3) Mayor Osbon was not listed as an attendee at that important workshop.
The following two questions posed to Mr O’Briant at 4:30 p.m. today went unanswered:
If this was not a meeting, why was it paid for with city funds?
Under what city procurement authorization is this type of party of six allowed?
___________________
Next: The “Stakeholders Meetings.”
__________________
(1) The email read:
“Mr. Bedenbaugh,
I have some questions and comments regarding two issues:
1. I suddenly realized that the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) has been published sensitive city financial information online. Specifically, the AMDC has published copies of its checks to various consultants, vendors, utilities, etc that contain the routing number and account number of the checking account.
1a. Can you explain why this routing and account number information was not redacted? Even with a banking executive on the commission?
1b. If this information was released via a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) before being placed on the AMDC site ( as it appears to have been since no recent payments are posted) did the failure to redact violated any city or state FOIA rules or policies?
You all really should go back through and redact that account number before somebody goes out and buys some premium whiskey online; which provides a segue to item 2.
2. Pertaining to the $620 bill from Prime Steakhouse on January 4, 2002, identified as “City of Aiken payment for Prime 011022” on the AMDC “transparency page” of its website:
2a. Can you identify the people in the party who dined on fine steaks along with premium whiskey that afternoon?
2b. Was this considered a meeting under state open meetings law?
2c. Was the dinner and drinks related in any way to the structural assessment of the Hotel Aiken also conducted that day by a consultant for RPM Development Parters, LLC, or is that pure coincidence?
Thank You,
Don Moniak
Eureka Fire Protection District
Aiken County, SC.”
Mr. Bedenbaugh responded that day: “I will review.”
(2)A FOIA request was submitted on July 25, 2022 for: “1. The expense report that was submitted for the steak and whiskey dinner at Prime Steakhouse on January 4, 2022; as required by City of Aiken statutes and policies governing reimbursement of expenses. 2. The memo for record (or other document) that recorded the discussion and agreements reached at the Steak and Whiskey dinner, and a listing of all attendants at the meeting, including those on the second check cited on the dinner and whiskey tab.”
(2) From the DRB January 4, 2022 Workshop Meeting Minutes, the following people were listed as present: “City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Assistant City Manager Mary Catherine Lawton, Planning Director Marya Moultrie, Planner Mary Tilton, Zoning
Official Mike Dennis,Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, Erica
Sanders, Ray Massey, Grey Raines, Brandon Graham, Stephen Overcash,
Susan French, David Blake, Mandy Drumming, Mark Chostner, Philip
Merry, David Jameson, Christopher Verenes, Martin Buckley and other
interested parties”
Although the meeting minutes state the workshop began at 5:30 p.m and ended at 6:30. The bar and dinner bill time appears to be 19:55 (7:55 p.m).
Omissions, Distractions, and Inaccuracies Plague Latest Aiken Standard Report
A front page story in the Sunday edition of the Aiken Standard (“Aiken businesses in footprint of Project Pascalis share reactions to redevelopment plans,” by Matthew Christian, July 23, 2022) (1) devoted considerable space to discussing the private business information of eight businesses still operating within the proposed Project Pascalis demolition zone.
Project Pascalis is the name for the City of Aiken’s $100 million plus endeavor to demolish and redevelop more nearly half of a major downtown block (2) and the businesses are being compelled to relocate. The businesses are located on five of the seven properties purchased by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) in November, 2021 for $9.5 million and each property is proposed for demolition and redevelopment.
The issues with the story include:
It is unnecessarily littered with guesswork about the private business information regarding individual rent schedules;
Omits the fact that one business, On Board Realty, also operates as property manager; which one citizen’s investigation has revealed to be a no-bid contract;
Failed to recognize a separate leasing arrangement held by another business, Newberry Hall;
Did not report on the non disparagement clause in the proposed relocation agreement between the AMDC and the demolition zone tenants.
The Distraction of Rent Payments
The July 24th Aiken Standard story contains unnecessary and intrusive speculation based on a single document, which Standard reporter Matt Christian defines as “a redacted document on the transparency page” on the (AMDC) website. This document can be found at:
The Standard is apparently unaware the actual rent information was available prior to July 13th, contained within several files involving the property manager. These files are no longer available for a good reason: unlike the redacted lease list, the names of businesses were not redacted from the document on file.
On July 13, 2022, I emailed City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh with concerns and questions regarding the security of AMDC checking account data and the $620 bar and dinner tab at Prime Steakhouse amassed by the AMDC on January 4, 2022. I made that email public on the Do It Right! Facebook page, but did not make this subsequent email public:
Mr. Bedenbaugh,
Along the same lines, the checks at the AMDC transparency page have the info redacted, but the invoices do not. The City also needs to go through and redact the important business information related to AMDC tenants. The names of tenants are redacted on one document but they are not in the invoices from On Board Reality.
Now maybe it is time to find a new FOIA officer for the city?
Within a few days of these two emails, the documents containing the routing and account numbers on copies of AMDC Security Federal checks, and the documents containing the names of AMDC tenants were properly removed from the its “transparency page.” Unfortunately, the documents, with properly redacted information, have not been restored.
There is one rent that is of public interest, as it does involve a city contractor. On Board Realty pays $450 a month.
An Undisclosed, No-Bid Contract
The AMDC’s property manager for the Pascalis properties is On Board Reality, a fact that the Standard either did not uncover or chose not to disclose.
The Standard did disclose that On Board Realty is “another business owner operating under a month-to-month arrangement with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission.” Its owner, Patricia Lucas, was the only person interviewed to express pleasure with Project Pascalis.
On Board Realty handles the property management under contract to the AMDC, including collecting more than $19,000 a month in rent payments; a fact easily discernible by viewing the commission’s bank statement, located at the same AMDC “transparency page” as the redacted lease list:
This contract was not obtained via a competitive bid, as required by the city’s municipal code. This lapse in procurement compliance was uncovered by Aiken resident and concerned citizen Kelly Cornelius. On July 15, 2022 Ms. Cornelius filed a FOIA request for, “the RFP or bid proposal notice that went out for the position that On Board Realty now holds as the collector of rent for the Pascalis Properties.”
Two days later, one of the city’s FOIA officers, Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, replied:
“The AMDC selected the firm for property management based on prior experience managing the same properties. The firm is also one of the tenants impacted by the purchase of the properties. There was no RFP or bid.”
Mr O’Briant did not cite an existing lease agreement assigned to the AMDC during the sale closures to justify the no-bid contract, and tenants at the 106 Laurens property paid their rent directly to Shah Enterprises, LLC prior to obtaining the city as their new landlord. It is possible, though unlikely, that property manager Neel Shah would hire a property manager to manage his monthly rental properties.
City of Aiken’s municipal code requires bids on “purchases of or contracts for supplies, materials, equipment, or services” exceeding $2500:
if between $2,500 and $5,000, “oral bids from at least three suppliers on the bidders list, whenever possible, should be obtained.”
if greater than $5,000 but not exceeding $25,000, “bids from at least three suppliers on the bidders list, whenever possible, must be obtained in writing.”:
if greater than $25,000 a written contract is mandated and a more complex set of rules apply.
The Aiken Standard devoted considerable efforts guessing at the rent payments of each business, information that is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The redactions in the document cited was proper. The lack of redactions in documents removed was not proper.
Newberry Hall
Newberry Hall is the only affected business whose owners were involved in negotiating a lease arrangement during the early phases of Project Pascalis, when the only meetings being held were behind closed doors in executive sessions. This information was made public on the AMDC “transparency” page only after another FOIA request by Ms. Cornelius.
That request yielded the signed, closing purchase and sale agreement between the Wyatt family’s WTC Investments, LLC and Newberry Hall’s owner, Myrtle Anderson; and the “agreement regarding lease and option” between WTC and Newberry Hall’s business owners, Patrick and Natalie Carlisle. (3) This lease agreement remained in effect when the Aiken Chamber of Commerce took “assignment” of WTC’s purchase contracts on June 3, 2021, and when the AMDC finally purchased the properties on November 9, 2021 (4).
The lease agreement included options for compensation for lost income, purchase of a new building, and taking over operations of the new conference center. As reported in The Aiken Chronicles on July 16th, the status of negotiations between the AMDC and Newberry Hall are unknown; but in response to a FOIA request for a contract to operate the new conference center, the city has declared that no such contract exists.(5)
While the Aiken Standard devoted considerable energy and space to the issue of compensation to businesses formerly paying rent to Shah family enterprises, the AMDC’s lease agreement with Newberry Hall received scant attention.
The No Disparagement Clause
The Standard interviewed most of the business owners, but either failed to recognize or decided not to report an important clause in the proposed relocation assistance agreement the city has offered tenants. Section three of the clause reads:
“Section 3 Non-Disparagement. The Tenant agrees not to make any negative, defamatory, disparaging, or derogatory public comments about the Commission concerning the termination of the Tenancy.”
This may be standard boilerplate legal language, but in this case the landlord is not a private property owner, the landlord is currently a branch of city government that is responsible for pursuing and managing Project Pascalis. How does a tenant agree to not disparage the project without disparaging the project’s commission seeking to terminate the tenancy?
Commentary
On June 13th I also wrote the following to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:
“I have always accepted some exemptions to FOIA. We do not need to know what day Tenant x paid their rent and how much they paid.
“I think it was 21 years ago that I encountered a travel report for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff member on its cumbersome ADAMS web site. It included his passport information. I informed him right away and the agency took down the letter and redacted the sensitive information.
“There are many stories just like that. In fact we have one here on the AMDC website, in which info we have little right to, and no need to know, is posted, but information that may be released that we have a right to know is redacted or withheld.
“Obviously I am referring to the list of developers who submitted proposals in response to the May 2021 AMDC RFP; as well as the entire body of that request.
“This serves as another appeal for the full release of those documents.”
The City of Aiken has yet to release these documents that, under SC FOIA law, they “may” release but can also withhold. The redacted document referred to in that email is here:
This story illustrates how we are often treated to information we do not need to know and is even generally exempt from FOIA requests; while important information pertaining to the common good is routinely withheld from public view.
At the April 20, 2022 Project Pascalis public meeting, moderator Tim O’Briant took offense to a question posed by Aiken resident and concerned citizen Lisa Smith: “How many businesses have been evicted?”
Mr. O’Briant correctly noted that no businesses had been evicted, but did not elaborate on the legal meaning of eviction or the possibility of future evictions. It is this kind of disingenuousness that earns government the wrath of its citizens.
The Aiken Standard yesterday devoted considerable space to discussing the private business information of the Project Pascalis Evictees, as I now sometimes refer to the businesses that are being compelled (subject to legal interventions) to relocate and make way for the Mayor and City Council’s idea of progress. While nobody has faced any legal eviction proceedings, the fact is that threat does loom in their future unless they play ball with the city.
In yesterday’s story, the Standard treated people to what they did not need to know while neglecting issues of much greater importance. The Standard owes its readers and the businesses a correction pertaining to its speculation, and an apology for its omissions of known information and a general failure to investigate using all the tools at its disposal.
Recently obtained documents reveal the City of Aiken has declared no insurance value for the historic Hotel Aiken, and is paying an annual insurance premium of only $441 on the hotel. (1) The City of Aiken has provided no reason for the decision to leave the hotel nearly uninsured.
Hotel Aiken: No Value, Barely Insured
The City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) purchased seven properties at a cost of $9.5 million in early November, 2021. The purchase was funded by a bond issuance approved by Aiken City Council three months earlier. (2). Two of the properties, the Hotel Aiken and the adjacent Holley House Motel, were vacant at the time of the purchase. The combined purchase price for these two properties was $4.25 million.
Photos from 5-star reviews of Hotel Aiken in 2017
The properties form a substantial portion of the proposed, but evolving, demolition and redevelopment endeavor in downtown Aiken called Project Pascalis. The project is promoted and led by the AMDC, which was formed in 2019 and has no prior, largescale institutional development experience.
After the original developer GAC, LLC (agent: Weldon Wyatt) exited from the project in May, 2021 for unknown reasons, the AMDC eventually selected RPM Development Partners, LLC (agent: Ray Massey) as its replacement in December 2021. The AMDC signed a conditional purchase and sale (PSA) agreement for the seven properties, pending a final master cost-sharing and development agreement. That PSA remains confidential and exempt from a Freedom of Information Act request. The AMDC has stated that it will offer “a discounted price for the property upon which they will build the hotel and apartments.” (3)
A request for proposals (RFP) leading up to RPM’s selection occurred in May, 2021 and was not publicly advertised as required by South Carolina Community Development laws. A legal advertisement for RFP’s was placed ten days after the selection of RPM. As a result, the legitimacy of RPM’s status as the developer has been challenged in court. (4)
The Hotel Aiken was placed on the city’s historic register in 2018. The designation remains despite the city’s Design Review Board (DRB) approval on March 1, 2022 of a demolition application from RPM for the hotel and the adjacent building titled 106 Laurens St, SW. The permission to demolish, approved by a vote of 6-1, is conditional, and demolition will not occur until RPM has a final agreement to purchase the property, has a final master agreement with the AMDC, and final designs are approved by the DRB.
In a document titled “Property Schedule,” attached to the first page of the property declarations portion of the city’s property insurance policy, no value is assigned to the Hotel Aiken. This zero value was assigned months prior to the demolition application being filed.
The annual insurance premium for the hotel is only $441, less than the premium for the average 1200 square foot home. The total insurance value is only $284,060, even though in 2021 the Aiken County Assessor appraised the market value of the land at $562,000 and the hotel improvements at $987,000 for a total appraised market value of $1.549 million.
Another way of looking at the value of the Hotel Aiken is by examining the offers the AMDC received in 2021. According to a redacted review of bidders (5) involved in the May, 2021 RFP process, one developer was rejected for only offering $1 million for the hotel property, described in the review as a “deeply discouted (sic) price.”
Cropped to show $1 million offer
In contrast, the adjacent Holley House motel, which is also vacant and part of the Project Pascalis demolition zone, has an assigned value of $2.25 million and an annual policy payment of $3493. Every other building in the demolition zone also has an insurance value matching the AMDC’s purchase prices. (See Property Declarations Table).
Property Declarations Table
When asked about the lack of insurance value for the Hotel Aiken, city officials declined to comment. The question as to why the AMDC spent more than $2 million on land and improvements, describe a $1 million offer as a “deeply discounted” value, and then chose not to insure the improvements against fire or other losses also remains unanswered.
____________________
Coming Soon: Part 2: Less Protected: A before and after comparison of fire protection programs for downtown AMDC properties.
____________________
(1) A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed on July 11, 2022. The request was for:
“Copies of the Property and Building Insurance Policies for the following AMDC owned properties 121-21-09-001: 106 Laurens St 121-21-09-002 : Hotel Aiken 121-21-08-001 Holley House 121-21-08-002: Taj Restaurant + 121-21-08-003: Old Johnson Drug Store 121-21-08-004: Warneke Cleaners 121-21-08-004: Newberry Hall. These commercial property and building insurance policies should be readily on hand and retrievable within fifteen minutes.”
The City of Aiken responded on July 18 with a $16 charge for 1.25 hours of search and retrieval labor. After receiving payment on July 18th, the city waited until July 21st to release three documents:
The insurance policy is titled “SOUTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE and RISK FINANCING FUND COVERAGE CONTRACT 2022.”
Only a portion of this document, the “property declarations” chapter, was provided in the FOIA response. The city claims that the remaining portions do not apply to AMDC owned properties. Chapters detailing coverage declarations for liability, crime, and casualty coverage were considered unrelated to the request for entire insurance policies.
The issue is presently under appeal to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh.
A sunny Saturday afternoon in downtown Aiken, July 2022 (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
Three recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the City of Aiken regarding the ongoing downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis yielded either no documents or incomplete documentation. But the paucity of documentation functions, in these cases, as good information shining more bad light on the vagaries of Project Pascalis.
The following information is good to know:
The City of Aiken has not compiled an account of questions and answers from its Project Pascalis public meetings of April 20th, 2022, and one of its meeting transcripts (which it has yet to release) omits all public comment. (1)
An offer was made to purchase the Aiken Antique Mall in March, 2021 as part of a larger land consolidation effort during the earliest stage of project development (2). The Aiken City Attorney’s law firm billed Weldon Wyatt’s investment and development firm WTC, Investments, LLC for the effort.
There is no contract yet between the City of Aiken and Newberry Hall’s operators for the management and operation of the proposed city-owned conference center. (3)
The City’s Listening Skills Are Not on Display
The City of Aiken’s website includes a five year old page titled “City of Aiken Revitalization Project.” This was the “Downtown Renaissance” project that included some elements found in the Project Pascalis proposal, but was more dispersed and did not involve demolishing a substantial portion of downtown Aiken. On that page, the City declared:
Downtown revitalization takes initiative, courage, and vision to look at what makes for a vibrant, walkable, livable center that fosters community vibrancy while creating economic opportunity. Aiken is no different. Our history of downtown revitalization is strong and the City stands ready to face the next chapter of downtown development. (4)
Although the “Downtown Renaissance” plan became mired in controversy and faded into recent history, the city did document citizen concerns in great detail. The revitalization project website features twenty pages of “Questions submitted from the public,” and links to other documents containing more than one hundred pages of comments and questions.
In contrast, the City of Aiken has no similar record of public input for Project Pascalis. The two transcripts from the April 20, 2022 public meetings, when the city promised to have transcripts the next day, are poor and incomplete records of that event:
a. The morning meeting “You Tube” transcript is painfully difficult to read and does not identify speakers; and b. The evening meeting transcript ends when public comment begins.
Until now, no transcript has ever been released to the public.
When asked for a copy of a question and answer document similar to the one found for the “Downtown Renassaince,” the city came up empty. No efforts to document citizen questions and comments has occurred. Listening is not on the city’s agenda for Project Pascalis.
The Antique Mall Was Targeted as Part of the Original Project Pascalis
Aiken Antique Mall, July 2022 (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
The ownership of the Aiken Antique Mall has not changed hands, and there is no proposal to demolish it. But it was part of the aggressive effort to consolidate downtown property ownership to facilitate a major demolition and redevelopment project.
This consolidation effort is encouraged by the city’s “master economic development plan” completed by AECOM corporation in 2021, which cites “fragmented property ownership” as one of the “challenges for large-scale redevelopment.” This “fragmented property ownership” issue was cited by City Council in August, 2021 as a key justification to issue $10 million in bonds for the AMDC to purchase Parkway District properties.
Aiken Antique Mall, July 2022
An offer (or offers) was made on the Aiken Antique Mall, and Weldon Wyatt’s investment and development firms had enough confidence the property would be obtained to include it in the first concept plans completed in April, 2021 by The Boudreaux Group. (5)
In response to a FOIA request for the Antique Mall purchase and sale offer, the City of Aiken declared there is no responsive document. In response to a follow-up question, Aiken Economic Development Director and designated FOIA officer Tim O’Briant wrote:
WTC/GAC made an offer on the referenced property in the same timeframe that the firm(s) secured contracts on the other adjacent parcels. These discussions and agreements were in place prior to them approaching the City/AMDC about a public-private partnership and before the parties entered a cost-sharing agreement.
Since the contract on properties collectively referred to as “the Shah property” was secured on March 2, 2021 and the cost-sharing agreement was finalized on March 23, 2021, an offer on the Antique Mall was made during that period. It was then included in the planning process. Whether the developers had the consent of the owner to include their property in any plans is unknown at this point.
What is known is that the Aiken City Attorney’s law firm billed WTC Investments, LLC for $6,800 to “prepare contracts and negotiate contracts for purchase of hotel, purchase of Mrs. Anderson’s property and purchase of Antique Mall.” (6)
Another unknown is the status of the land consolidation effort that attempted to encompass the Antique Mall. The City of Aiken’s official economic growth strategy discourages “fragmented property ownership patterns.”
Aiken Antique Mall, July 2022 (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
Aiken Antique Mall detail, (Photo courtesy of Donald Moniak)
The Aiken Antique Mall property with its facade of flaking paint could be portrayed as crumbling and blighted by another slick public relations campaign targeting more properties for demolition and redevelopment. What is to stop it?
Newberry Hall: No Contract, Yet.
Newberry Hall is a private business catering to conferences, meetings, and weddings. It is a common venue for groups hosting political leaders. The influential Aiken Republican Club holds its monthly breakfasts there, which in June 2022 featured U.S. Congressman Joe Wilson.
Newberry Hall’s website includes numerous favorable reviews, such as this one from City of Aiken public information officer Chris Ceasar:
Newberry Hall is one of the premiere catering facilities in Aiken County. Whatever your dining pleasure, they can and will accommodate. The staff is very professional. The cuisine is most delectable. The facility is gorgeous. Try Newberry Hall. You will be pleasantly surprised!
Newberry Hall accurately describes its property located at 117 Newberry Street, SW as follows:
Newberry Hall is on a tree-lined and beautifully landscaped city street in the heart of downtown Aiken. Walk through the front doors of Newberry Hall and enter the perfect environment for your social or corporate event.
Newberry Hall, July 2022. (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
In March 2021 the development team led by Weldon Wyatt and Ray Massey sought to demolish this fixture of downtown Aiken life and the surrounding landscaping and replace it with a larger conference center connected to a new hotel. Eventually they signed a contract with the owner, Myrtle Anderson, to purchase the property for $2 million.
This negotiation was no cakewalk. Newberry Hall collectively negotiated favorable terms for the owner/operators of the Newberry Hall business, Patrick and Natalie Carlisle, and an “Agreement for Regarding Lease and Option” was added to the purchase and sale agreement and signed by Ms. Anderson and Weldon Wyatt. This agreement, first finalized on April 15, 2021, was retained by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission after the contracts were transferred to it via the Aiken Chamber of Commerce, which took “assignment” of the property from WTC Investments, LLC on June 3, 2021.
The lease and option agreement included options for Newberry Hall to purchase the new building, operate the new city owned conference center, and be compensated for lost income during the construction period. The agreement states:
C. The development of the Project contemplates that the improvements on the Property would be demolished and replaced with a larger conference center and kitchen and that Carlisle would be compensated for loss of income during interruption of Carlisle’ s business and would lease the replacement conference center and kitchen pursuant to a replacement lease and operating agreement, the terms of which are under discussion but are not finalized (the “Operating Agreement”).
D. Section 5 of the Lease provides Carlisle with a purchase option (the “Option”) that would be triggered by the closing of the Purchase.
E. Anderson and Carlisle desire to that Commission close the Purchase without triggering the Option and have requested that Carlisle grant a one-time waiver of the Option to allow Carlisle and Commission more time to attempt to finalize an Operating Agreement.
In its response to the FOIA request for the contract to operate the future conference center, the The City of Aiken “determined that no contract as described has been considered for approval by Aiken City Council or the AMDC and to date no such instrument has been executed by the parties referenced.”
The city did not provide any more information, yet, no followup questions have been posed. The fact that “no such instrument has been executed” implies that such an instrument is still under negotiation, and would arguably be exempt from disclosure by SC FOIA law due to being a contract under negotiation and not a final product.
Newberry Hall, July 2022. (Photo courtesy of Debbie Traves Brown)
If Project Pascalis survives legal challenges and citizen outcry, downtown Aiken will endure a minimum of three years of major demolition followed by construction. By comparison, reconstruction of The Alley took sixteen months and the Hotel Aiken has been vacant for four years. The Wedding parties, meetings, conferences, breakfasts, and other events routinely held at Newberry Hall will be held elsewhere. How much of a loss to downtown businesses will this inflict?
Commentary
Prying information from any government body that selectively spoon feeds the people its version of the truth can bring to mind former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld’s famous musing about information, a series of concepts so complex that even he tripped over them during later interviews.
.
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
— Donald Rumsfeld
The secrecy and intrigue surrounding the $100 million downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis pales in comparison to the world of international nuclear insecurity that Rumsfeld was in part referring to that day. But the concept of information confusion is relevant to any process plagued by secrecy.
The details of Project Pascalis were kept secret for eight full months in 2021, and the AMDC met in closed door executive session more than fifty percent of the time since the project was announced in March, 2021, primarily to discuss the project. (8)
My wife describes ‘transparency’ as “something you can see through,” while ‘openness’ means “listening to and talking about what people see on the other side.” The City of Aiken likes to talk about being transparent, but continues to disregard the more important character trait of openness during this process.
________________________
(1) A FOIA request was filed on July 6th for “1. A transcript of both April 20, 2022 public “design workshop” meetings held at 214 Park Avenue W. The meetings were also was held on Zoom, and during the 530-700 pm meeting, and during this Zoom call participants were asked if they wanted a transcript of the meeting. 2. All comments and questions submitted to the Zoom moderator. 3. Any compilation of questions and answers by City of Aiken and/or AMDC staff from the April 20, 2022 meetings. If they exist, these documents should be readily available with minimal search time.”
The City responded the same day with three documents:
No compilation of questions and answers from the meetings were provided, and none exist.
(2) A FOIA request was filed on July 11th for a “copy of the purchase (agreement) of the Antique mall referenced in the attached invoice. Since this was a part of the public-private cost sharing agreement between the AMDC and GAC, LLC, this should be available from the City of Aiken.”
The city replied there was no “responsive record,” meaning the record may exist but they do not possess it. The city did confirm “discussions” to purchase the property:
“The City replied determined the invoiced charge was related to initial discussions with the owners of the referenced parcels by GAC, LCC. No agreement was struck, the property was never placed under contract with nor purchased by GAC, LLC, the City of Aiken nor the AMDC. Therefore, there is no responsive record.” (1)
In a subsequent answer to a followup question, the city replied:
“WTC/GAC made an offer on the referenced property in the same timeframe that the firm(s) secured contracts on the other adjacent parcels. These discussions and agreements were in place prior to them approaching the City/AMDC about a public-private partnership and before the parties entered a cost-sharing agreement. Therefore, no documents related to the earlier unsuccessful offer on the referenced property were ever shared with either the City or the AMDC. If such a record were available within the City’s possession and control, I’d be happy to provide it. There simply isn’t one.”
(3) A FOIA request was filed on July 8, 2022 requesting:
“A copy of The contract between the City of Aike or AMDC and the owners and operators of Newberry Hall for Rental and operation of the proposed City of Aiken conference center.”
The city responded:
“The City of Aiken has determined that no contract as described has been considered for approval by Aiken City Council or the AMDC and to date no such instrument has been executed by the parties referenced.”
